EPTA-move by Design *NEW* tldr version (5K) - Page 2
| Blogs > Falling |
|
Gonzo103
Germany220 Posts
| ||
|
Alpino
Brazil4390 Posts
On October 23 2012 12:37 Falling wrote: Unfortunately lengthy posts are my bane  I suspect a lot of my normal posting is about as long as some people's blogs.It certainly makes it a much greater task to read. But I don't like leaving loose ends that will quickly turn into useless side arguments when I can cover all my bases at the beginning. But I definitely agree that brevity would be helpful. I like to say that if you wanna say big things you need big explanations that leave no holes, that's exactly why and how science works, a good way of doing things if you ask me. | ||
|
Grend
1600 Posts
 | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
| ||
|
Kittan
Poland3999 Posts
On October 23 2012 14:19 mmp wrote: Correction: Scarab behavior is not random. I'm glad somebody actually knows about that thread, I was hugely impressed when I first read it. BW is a more than a game, it's a science <3 | ||
|
don_kyuhote
3007 Posts
On October 23 2012 22:37 Kittan wrote: BW is a more than a game, it's a science <3 This reminds me that BW even had a college course about it in UC Berkeley. Just another point in the long list of its legacies. | ||
|
meep
United States1699 Posts
On October 23 2012 22:37 bonifaceviii wrote: The best micro thread since Oh Micro Where Art Thou. Excellent work. For anyone curious, here's the link to that one, an excellent read as well as this one. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=121769 | ||
|
sorrowptoss
Canada1431 Posts
Sometimes I wish Blizzard would just remake BW with better graphics. But then again we would get tired of always playing the same thing for over 14 years... or would we? | ||
|
Snorkels
United States1015 Posts
Find one where I've cared about balance beyond it being a passing nuisance that will inevitably be patched. (I doubt you can even find that.) then I started to sit back and enjoy it. Just a thought: a table of contents might be good and make it easier to digest. Background; strengths of micro (subcategories?); unit design in BW/WoL (I suck at names  ); The Inevitable Protest/Counter-Argument [AKA the game is emergent! Yeah, this part was very cool]; categorizing micro; conclusions. Great blog, and grats on 5000. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
| ||
|
Alpino
Brazil4390 Posts
On October 23 2012 23:40 sorrowptoss wrote: It's really great how the OP references all kinds of posts from all corners of TL. Extremely insightful, deep and intricate analysis. Sometimes I wish Blizzard would just remake BW with better graphics. But then again we would get tired of always playing the same thing for over 14 years... or would we?Are people tired of chess yet? + Show Spoiler + not comparing chess and bw as games, comparing chess and bw awesomeness | ||
|
hoby2000
United States918 Posts
Something to really note here is that Capcom took what were bugs in their game, and turned them into features for their sequels. You've already given numerous other examples of this, but the biggest thing to me is that Blizzard said "Oh, technology is different so we can't do it like that now." That's bullshit. Technology may be different, but that doesn't mean you can't keep those things in there. It's not that it can't be done, it's that Blizzard was too lazy to do it and decided they knew better. It's obvious too when they created SC2 multiplayer with "esports in mind." You didn't create BW with Esports in mind, so why try to d the same with SC2? | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
I suggest adding this video with subs that I made some time ago into the OP, just in case people are interested: | ||
Waxangel
United States33671 Posts
I still think most of the 'problems' are rooted in the resource system/map design that incentivizes 3 base turtling and fighting with gigantic high tech armies. You could add all the small scale tricks you want but they wouldn't be as relevant as in BW just because the scale of the game switches to multi base, huge army so much quicker in SC2. | ||
Falling
Canada11592 Posts
On October 23 2012 17:42 MasterCynical wrote: I love reading your blogs. I hope you make more in the future. I think the most important quote that i've ever heard form a game developer is "players will always take the path of least resistance" Probably the most insightful quote ive heard from Dustin Browder is "[deathball] is the easiest way to play" This applies to all games, even all sports potentially. Why would you micro when you're better off a-moving and focus more on macro? This is because the gain from microing sc2 units are extremely small compared to microing BW or WC3 units. I think that was more or less what I was trying to get at with my just a-move tanks example. If the incentive isn't great enough, there might be a more technically complicated way of attacking, but players will take the path of least resistance. On October 23 2012 17:42 MasterCynical wrote: I don't really think that units like the Colossus aren't micro-ed intensively because they lack micro friendly mechanics such as these. Units like the Colossus just don't have any incentive to be microed like others. A BW example would be the Dragoon. It really didn't have any micro friendly mechanics yet you still had to perfectly micro them against spider mines and tanks otherwise they would just get 1shot. Dragoons actually do have the burst damage. They have their front loaded damage and (relatively) lengthy time between shots and it has a fast enough attack in between moving so that it is microable. The shot isn't as fast as vulture patrol micro, but it's fast enough for hold position micro. But again, we don't need every unit to have vulture like micro. And the rest of your post I more or less agree with. But the first 2 points (burst- front loaded damge with decent cooldown/ and speed difference between attack and move) is exactly why the collosus doesn't have the incentive to be microed. (It certainly isn't top speed because the collosus is relatively fast.) The path of least resistance is to back it up slowly or spread out a bit to mitigate damage. @Snorkels Table of contents would be cool, but I don't know how to do internal links within a post. @Wax And that is why I think it is a multi-causal problem and linked Barrin's thread at the beginning. But even if you fixed how fast resources come in and how fast armies can be accumulated, you are still left with a large number of units that are generally best used to reposition, spread and back up. But don't have that dominating attack-retreat micro as found in BW. All the small delays whether by unit design or Battlenet latency slows down how fast a unit can be attack retreated. Not to say there isn't cool micro in SC2. I agree there is. I usually go out of my way to note this. But there can and should be more. Much more. | ||
|
OpticalShot
Canada6330 Posts
Lately there seems to be a lot of these analytical posts regarding SC2 on TL. It's good to see that a lot of intelligent users genuinely care about the game. | ||
|
Flonomenalz
Nigeria3519 Posts
| ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
I started out playing RTS games, and then got in to fighting games. My girlfriend started out playing fighting games, and then got in to RTS games. (not through me, but before I met her) | ||
|
stenole
Norway869 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
making sure each individual unit has things you can manually do to improve it, and making sure that each one is interesting. Thanks OP, this is quite illuminating. | ||
| ||
